Demonstration of the third-order nonlinear Hall effect in topological Dirac semimetal NiTe$_2$

A.V. Timonina; E.V. Deviatov; N.N. Kolesnikov; V.D. Esin

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Demonstration of the third-order nonlinear Hall effect in topological Dirac semimetal NiTe$_2$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a field-independent third-harmonic transverse Hall voltage in the Dirac semimetal NiTe2 and identifies it as the third-order nonlinear Hall effect.

desk verdict Plausible but incomplete evidence for third-order NLHE in NiTe2; missing Vxx^3ω control and I^3 fit keep it from being conclusive. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08223 v1 pith:SQOOMS7L submitted 2025-02-12 cond-mat.mes-hall

V.D. Esin , A.V. Timonina , N.N. Kolesnikov , E.V. Deviatov This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords third-ordernonlinearHalleffectthird-harmonicvoltageNiTe2type-IIDiracsemimetalBerryconnectionpolarizabilitytransportlock-in

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that NiTe2, a type-II Dirac semimetal with both inversion and time-reversal symmetry, exhibits a third-order nonlinear Hall effect: passing an alternating current produces a transverse voltage at three times the drive frequency, and this signal does not depend on an external magnetic field. The authors argue that this response comes from the Berry connection polarizability tensor, a topological mechanism that can survive even when the usual second-order nonlinear Hall effect is forbidden by symmetry. They support the claim by showing that the second-harmonic transverse voltage is nearly two orders of magnitude smaller than the third-harmonic one. If correct, the result extends the third-order nonlinear Hall effect to a second Dirac semimetal and provides a magnetic-field-free nonlinear Hall signal.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Berry connection polarizability tensor $\tilde{G} = \partial A(\mathbf{k})/\partial E$, which describes how the Berry connection $A(\mathbf{k})$ is modified by an applied electric field. In the second-order nonlinear Hall effect the Berry connection is field-independent, but here the field modulation produces a field-induced Berry curvature $\Omega_E = \nabla_\mathbf{k} \times A(\mathbf{k},E)$, which yields a transverse voltage at the third harmonic. Because bulk NiTe2 preserves both inversion and time-reversal symmetry, the Berry-curvature-dipole mechanism for the second-order effect is suppressed, so the finite $V_{xy}^{3\omega}$ response is attributed to this higher-order Berry-connection-polarizability mechanism.

What would settle it

Measure the longitudinal third-harmonic voltage $V_{xx}^{3\omega}$ in the same contact geometry at the same currents and temperatures; if $V_{xx}^{3\omega}$ is comparable to $V_{xy}^{3\omega}$, or if the 3ω transverse signal is not antisymmetric under voltage-probe swap, the third-order Hall assignment fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In two NiTe2 single-crystal flakes measured by four-point lock-in transport at 1.4-4.2 K, the transverse third-harmonic voltage $V_{xy}^{3\omega}$ grows monotonically with the alternating current amplitude up to 3.85 mA, reaching 30-100 nV without saturation. The transverse second-harmonic signal $V_{xy}^{2\omega}$ is only 5-20 nV and nearly coincides with the longitudinal $V_{xx}^{2\omega}$, which the authors take as evidence that the 2ω response is a geometry-limited longitudinal contribution. Sweeping the magnetic field between ±0.5 T at fixed current leaves $V_{xy}^{3\omega}$ unchanged, in contrast to the field-dependent first-order and second-order Hall effects. The authors read this as a third-order nonlinear Hall effect generated by field-induced Berry curvature arising from the Berry connection polarizability.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the measured $V_{xy}^{3\omega}$ is a longitudinal nonlinear response leaking into the transverse contacts instead of a genuine Hall component.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the assignment is correct, NiTe2 becomes a second Dirac semimetal, after Cd3As2, showing the third-order nonlinear Hall effect, so the effect is not a single-material accident.
The independence of $V_{xy}^{3\omega}$ from the magnetic field up to ±0.5 T gives an experimental fingerprint that cleanly separates the third-order nonlinear Hall effect from the field-dependent first-order and second-order Hall responses.
The negligibly small second-harmonic transverse signal in the same samples is consistent with the inversion symmetry of bulk NiTe2 and with the predicted suppression of the Berry-curvature-dipole mechanism.
Because the response appears in thick flakes and is stable over cooling cycles and from 1.4 K to 4.2 K, it is a bulk transport property rather than a fragile surface or contact artifact.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Extension: a direct longitudinal control for the third harmonic, $V_{xx}^{3\omega}(I)$, would close the gap between the stated Hall assignment and the displayed data; if it tracks $V_{xy}^{3\omega}$, the Hall interpretation would be in doubt.
Extension: at low drive amplitudes a true third-order response should scale as $I^3$; checking the measured exponent would distinguish the Berry-connection mechanism from Joule-heating or capacitive artifacts that can appear at 3ω.
Extension: comparing the sign and angular dependence of $V_{xy}^{3\omega}$ against a $\tilde{G}$-tensor calculation for NiTe2 would test the Berry-connection-polarizability mechanism quantitatively rather than only by symmetry exclusion.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a plausible, incremental experimental observation of the third-order nonlinear Hall effect in a second bulk Dirac semimetal, NiTe2, with a magnetic-field-independent third-harmonic signal. The main caveat is the missing longitudinal 3ω control; if Vxx^3ω is comparable to Vxy^3ω, the Hall attribution fails.

What's actually new: previous work demonstrated the effect in Cd3As2 (their Ref. 22); this paper adds NiTe2 and reports that Vxy^3ω is independent of B, which is a useful fingerprint. That's a real but modest step.

The paper does several things well. The sample preparation is careful, with XRD and EDS characterization. The first-harmonic data show Vxy^1ω is an order of magnitude smaller than Vxx^1ω at zero field, which is a direct check that the transverse contacts are not picking up longitudinal voltage. The 2ω vs 3ω comparison (Fig. 2) is clear, and the authors explicitly engage with thermoelectric and capacitance artifacts. They also cite the prior Cd3As2 result properly.

The soft spots are concentrated in the evidence that Vxy^3ω is truly Hall. The authors show Vxx^2ω ≈ Vxy^2ω in Fig. 3(a) and call it an accuracy check, but they never show Vxx^3ω. If a longitudinal 3ω signal of similar magnitude exists, the geometry check from 1ω may not rescue the claim, since nonlinear longitudinal artifacts can scale differently with harmonic. The antisymmetry under probe swap for the 3ω component is asserted but not displayed. There is also no explicit fit of Vxy^3ω to I^3; the lock-in harmonic alone confirms an odd-order nonlinearity, but not specifically the cubic term. The magnetic-field sweep is limited to ±0.5 T, so the B-independence claim, while plausible, is not tested over a wide range. No error bars are shown.

None of these are fatal individually, but together they leave the central identification incomplete. The reader's stress-test note is on target, though I'd soften it slightly: the 1ω geometry check is a real point in the authors' favor, so the missing 3ω control is a gap rather than evidence of contamination.

Who is this for? Groups working on nonlinear Hall effects in topological semimetals would want to know this result, especially since it may help distinguish the Berry-connection-polarizability mechanism from magnetic-field-dependent contributions. It deserves a serious referee: the question is well-posed, the experiment is straightforward, and the missing controls are exactly what a referee should ask for. I'd recommend sending to peer review with a request for the Vxx^3ω data, an I^3 fit, and error bars. If those come back clean, the paper would be a solid confirmation in a new material.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports low-temperature four-point transport measurements on NiTe2 single crystals. The authors measure the first-, second-, and third-harmonic voltage components in a circular contact geometry and report a third-harmonic transverse voltage Vxy^3ω that is an order of magnitude larger than the second-harmonic Vxy^2ω, and that is independent of magnetic field up to ±0.5 T. They attribute Vxy^3ω to the third-order nonlinear Hall effect predicted for Dirac semimetals with preserved inversion and time-reversal symmetry, arising from the Berry connection polarizability tensor. The second-harmonic response is found to be negligibly small, consistent with the centrosymmetric structure, and the longitudinal and transverse second-harmonic components are shown to coincide in magnitude, which the authors interpret as a geometry check.

Significance. If the central identification is correct, the experiment provides evidence for the third-order nonlinear Hall effect in a type-II Dirac semimetal, complementing the earlier observation in Cd3As2 and supporting a material-independent, topological origin. The observed magnetic-field independence of Vxy^3ω is a potentially useful discriminator from first- and second-order Hall effects. The paper is concise, the measurements are shown for two samples, and the data are presented in a reproducible format. The main weakness is that the evidence for the transverse, Hall nature of the third-harmonic signal is incomplete: the longitudinal third-harmonic control is not shown, the probe-swap antisymmetry is only asserted, and no cubic current-scaling test is reported.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Figs. 2 and 3] The central identification of Vxy^3ω as a Hall effect requires demonstrating that the third-harmonic transverse voltage is genuinely transverse and antisymmetric under probe swap, not a longitudinal nonlinear response leaking into the transverse contacts. The paper provides a longitudinal-versus-transverse comparison only for the second harmonic (Fig. 3(a), Vxx^2ω ≈ Vxy^2ω), which the authors interpret as a geometry check, and states without displaying that the voltage is antisymmetric under probe swap (Section II). No Vxx^3ω versus I data are shown. Since the 2ω control shows that the contact geometry can produce comparable longitudinal and 'transverse' components, the same contamination mechanism could equally affect the 3ω signal. Please provide the Vxx^3ω(I) comparison and display the probe-swap antisymmetry data for the third harmonic.
[Section III, Fig. 2] The third-order nature of the effect is not established by the lock-in harmonic alone. The predicted third-order nonlinear Hall voltage scales as Vxy^3ω ∝ I^3, but the manuscript reports no power-law fit to the data in Fig. 2 and does not state the extracted exponent. Without demonstrating cubic scaling, a 3ω component could arise from a second-order process combined with a nonlinear contact or from heating effects. Please fit Vxy^3ω(I) to I^n and report the exponent for both samples.
[Section III, Fig. 3(b)] The magnetic-field independence claim is restricted to the transverse component. A longitudinal third-harmonic leakage would also be essentially magnetic-field-independent in this geometry, so the B-sweep does not by itself distinguish a Hall response from a longitudinal artifact. Showing Vxx^3ω(B) under the same conditions would close this gap and make the 'new observation' of B-independence robust.
[Section IV and abstract] The statement that the measured signal 'well corresponds to the theoretically predicted third-order nonlinear Hall effect' is not backed by a quantitative comparison. The paper neither computes the expected magnitude of Vxy^3ω for NiTe2 nor compares the measured current dependence with a model. Please either add an order-of-magnitude estimate from the Berry-connection-polarizability theory or soften the claim to 'consistent with' rather than 'well corresponds to'.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section I] The phrase 'does not expected' should be 'is not expected'; the same grammatical issue appears in the abstract and conclusion.
[Section II] The phrase 'bee veriﬁed' should be 'been verified'.
[Fig. 3(b) caption] The caption reads 'The third-harmonic voltage V 2ω xy signal dependence'; this should be V^3ω_xy. The same typo appears in the text describing Fig. 3(b).
[References] References 2, 3, 27, 41, 43, and 48 are given as arXiv identifiers only; please provide published journal citations where available.
[Section II] The description of the contact geometry would be clearer if the figure indicated which contacts correspond to the current and ground leads and which to Vxx and Vxy; consider adding this directly to Fig. 1(a).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the third-harmonic Hall claim is an unparameterized experimental test of an external theory; self-citations are limited to sample preparation and technique.

full rationale

The paper derives no result from its own output. Its central claim is that a measured third-harmonic transverse voltage Vxy^3ω corresponds to the theoretically predicted third-order nonlinear Hall effect, with the theory (Berry connection polarizability tensor G-tilde) cited from external groups (Refs. 14-20). No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then relabeled as a prediction; the Vxy^3ω trace is a direct lock-in measurement, and the magnetic-field independence is an unparameterized observation. The authors' own references appear only for sample synthesis, contact quality, and material characterization (Refs. 30, 33-38) and, in Refs. 7 and 10, as examples of field-dependent second-harmonic Hall responses in other materials used for contrast; none of these citations supplies the load-bearing assertion that Vxy^3ω is the third-order NLHE. No equation in the paper reduces to an input by construction. The absence of a displayed Vxx^3ω comparison or an explicit I^3 scaling is a legitimate experimental-control concern, but missing controls are correctness risks, not circularity. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to its central claim, and the self-citations present are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The interpretation rests on externally established facts about NiTe2 (Dirac semimetal band structure, centrosymmetric P-3m1 structure) and on the theoretical framework of the Berry connection polarizability; the measurement itself introduces no fitted parameters or new entities.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption NiTe2 is a three-dimensional type-II Dirac semimetal with bulk Dirac points.
The whole interpretation as third-order NLHE in a Dirac semimetal rests on this band-structure fact, cited from ARPES Refs. 28,29; not directly verified in this transport study.
domain assumption NiTe2 is centrosymmetric (space group P-3m1).
The suppression of second-order NLHE and the attribution of the 3ω signal to Berry connection polarizability rely on inversion symmetry; supported by XRD (a=3.8791 Å, c=5.3005 Å) and Ref. 47.
domain assumption The third-harmonic transverse voltage is a Hall-type response separable from the longitudinal response by the contact geometry and probe-swap antisymmetry.
The identification of Vxy^3ω as a transverse Hall voltage assumes that longitudinal nonlinear signals do not leak into the transverse leads at the third harmonic; the paper only demonstrates this control for the second harmonic (Fig. 3a).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Demonstration of the third-order nonlinear Hall effect in topological Dirac semimetal NiTe$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQOOMS7L

@misc{pith2026250208223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Demonstration of the third-order nonlinear Hall effect in topological Dirac semimetal NiTe$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQOOMS7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08223}
}

abstract

We experimentally investigate third-order nonlinear Hall effect for three-dimensional NiTe$_2$ single crystal samples. NiTe$_2$ is the recently discovered type-II Dirac semimetal, so both the inversion and the time-reversal symmetries are conserved in the bulk. As a result, the well known second-order nonlinear Hall effect does not expected for this material, which we confirm as negligibly small second-harmonic transverse Hall voltage response to the longitudinal ac electric current. As the main experimental result, we demonstrate the unsaturated third-harmonic Hall response in NiTe$_2$, which well corresponds to the theoretically predicted third-order nonlinear Hall effect in Dirac semimetals. We also demonstrate, that the third harmonic signal does not depend on the external magnetic field, in contrast to the field-depended first-order and second-order Hall effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08223 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (Color online) (a) The second-harmonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

Sodemann and L

I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216806 (2015)

2015
[2]

Field-induced Berry connection and planar Hall effect in tilted Weyl semimetals

YuanDong Wang, Zhen-Gang Zhu, Gang Su. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.03579

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.03579
[3]

Extrinsic nonlinear acoustic valley Hall effect in the massive Dirac materials

Jia-Liang Wan, Ying-Li Wu, Ke-Qiu Chen, Xiao-Qin Yu. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.05698

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05698
[4]

Zhang, J

Y. Zhang, J. van den Brink, C. Felser, and B. Yan, 2D Mater. 5, 044001 (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

Cong Xiao, Z. Z. Du and Qian Niu, Phys. Rev. B 100, 165422 – Published 28 October, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

An-Qi Wang, Dong Li, Tong-Yang Zhao, Xing-Yu Liu, Jiantian Zhang, Xin Liao, Qing Yin, Zhen-Cun Pan, Peng Yu, Zhi-Min Liao, Phys. Rev. B 110, 155434 – Published 24 October, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

O. O. Shvetsov, V. D. Esin, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, and E. V. Deviatov, Jetp Lett. 109, 715–721 (2019)

work page 2019
[8]

Tiwari, F

A. Tiwari, F. Chen, Sh. Zhong, E. Drueke, J. Koo, A. Kaczmarek, C. Xiao, J. Gao, X. Luo, Q. Niu, Y. Sun, B. Yan, L. Zhao and A. W. Tsen, Nat. Commun. 12, 2049 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22343-5

doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22343-5 2021

Show all 53 references

[9]

N. N. Orlova, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, and E. V. Deviatov, Chinese Physics Letters 40, 077302 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307X/40/7/077302

2023 doi
[10]

V. D. Esin, A. A. Avakyants, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov and E. V. Deviatov. 2022 Chinese Phys. Lett. 39 097303

2022
[11]

T. Low, Y. Jiang, and F. Guinea, Physical Review B 92, 235447 (2015)

2015
[12]

J. E. Moore and J. Orenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 026805 (2010)

2010
[13]

Yang Zhang, Yan Sun and Binghai Yan. Phys. Rev. B 97, 041101(R) – Published 3 January, 2018

2018
[14]

Yang, and Qian Niu

Yang Gao, Shengyuan A. Yang, and Qian Niu. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 166601 – Published 25 April, 2014

2014
[15]

Yang and Qian Niu

Yang Gao Shengyuan A. Yang and Qian Niu. Phys. Rev. B 91, 214405 – Published 3 June, 2015

2015
[16]

Yang, Phys

Huiying Liu, Jianzhou Zhao, Yue-Xin Huang, Xiaolong Feng, Cong Xiao, Weikang Wu, Shen Lai, Wei-bo Gao and Shengyuan A. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 105, 045118 – Published 14 January, 2022

2022
[17]

Tanay Nag, Sanjib Kumar Das, Chuanchang Zeng and Snehasish Nandy, Phys. Rev. B 107, 245141 – Published 28 June, 2023

2023
[18]

Longjun Xiang, Chao Zhang, Luyang Wang and Jian Wang. Phys. Rev. B 107, 075411 – Published 10 February, 2023

2023
[19]

Phys.: Condens

Saswata Roy and Awadhesh Narayan 2022 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 34 385301

2022
[20]

Lai, S., Liu, H., Zhang, Z. et al. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 869–873 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-021-00917-0

2021 doi
[21]

As a recent review see N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 15001 (2018)

2018
[22]

Tong-Yang Zhao, An-Qi Wang, Xing-Guo Ye, Xing-Yu Liu, Xin Liao and Zhi-Min Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 186302 – Published 1 November, 2023

2023
[23]

Dushyant Kumar, Chuang-Han Hsu, Raghav Sharma, Tay-Rong Chang, Peng Yu, Junyong Wang, Goki Eda, Gengchiau Liang and Hyunsoo Yang, Nature Nanotechnology 16, 421-425, doi:10.1038/s41565-020-00839-3 (2021)

2021 doi
[24]

Lujin Min, Hengxin Tan, Zhijian Xie, Leixin Miao, Ruoxi Zhang, Seng Huat Lee, Venkatraman Gopalan, Chao-Xing Liu, Nasim Alem, Binghai Yan and Zhiqiang Mao, Nature Communications volume 14, 364 (2023)

2023
[25]

Terahertz detection based on nonlinear Hall effect without magnetic field

Zhang Y, Fu L. Terahertz detection based on nonlinear Hall effect without magnetic field. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2100736118 (2021)

2021
[26]

Yang, Nianze Shang, Kaihui Liu, and Zhi-Min Liao Phys

Xing-Guo Ye, Huiying Liu, Peng-Fei Zhu, Wen-Zheng Xu, Shengyuan A. Yang, Nianze Shang, Kaihui Liu, and Zhi-Min Liao Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 016301 (2023)

2023
[27]

Sanjay Sarkar, Amit Agarwal, arXiv:2501.17460

arXiv
[28]

Ghosh, D

B. Ghosh, D. Mondal, C.-N. Kuo, C. S. Lue, J. Nayak, J. Fujii, I. Vobornik, A. Politano, and A. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. B 100, 195134 (2019)

2019
[29]

Mukherjee, S

S. Mukherjee, S. W. Jung, S. F. Weber, C. Xu, D. Qian, X. Xu, P. K. Biswas, T. K. Kim, L. C. Chapon, M. D. Watson, J. B. Neaton, and C. Cacho, Scientific Reports 10, 12957 (2020)

2020
[30]

Esin, Oleg O

Varnava D. Esin, Oleg O. Shvetsov, Anna V. Timonina, Nikolai N. Kolesnikov and Eduard V. Deviatov, Nanomaterials 12(23), 4114 (2022); https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12234114

2022 doi
[31]

C. Xu, B. Li, W. Jiao, W. Zhou, B. Qian, R. Sankar, N. D. Zhigadlo, Y. Qi, D. Qian, F.-C. Chou, and X. Xu, Chem. Mater. 30, 4823 (2018)

2018
[32]

Q. Liu, F. Fei, B. Chen, X. Bo, B. Wei, S. Zhang, M. Zhang, F. Xie, M. Naveed, X.Wan, F. Song, and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 99, 155119 (2019)

2019
[33]

Shvetsov, A

O.O. Shvetsov, A. Kononov, A.V. Timonina, N.N. Kolesnikov, E.V. Deviatov, JETP Letters, 107, 774779 (2018)

2018
[34]

O. O. Shvetsov, V. D. Esin, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, and E. V. Deviatov, Phys. Rev. B 99, 125305 (2019)

2019
[35]

Shvetsov, A

O.O. Shvetsov, A. Kononov, A.V. Timonina, N.N. Kolesnikov, E.V. Deviatov, EPL, 124, 47003 (2018)

2018
[36]

O. O. Shvetsov, V. D. Esin, Yu. S. Barash, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, and E. V. Deviatov, Phys. Rev. B 101, 035304 (2020)

2020
[37]

O. O. Shvetsov, Yu. S. Barash, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, E. V. Deviatov JETP Letters, 115, 267–275 (2022). DOI: 10.1134/S0021364022100101

2022 doi
[38]

V. D. Esin, D. Yu. Kazmin, Yu. S. Barash, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, E. V. Deviatov, JETP Letters, 118, 847–854 (2023). DOI: 10.1134/S0021364023603329

2023 doi
[39]

C. Fu, Th. Scaffidi, J. Waissman, Y. Sun, R. Saha, S. J. Watzman, A. K. Srivastava, G. Li, W. Schnelle, P. Werner, M. E. Kamminga, S. Sachdev, S. S. P. Parkin, S. A. Hartnoll, C. Felser, and J. Gooth, arXiv: 1802.09468

arXiv
[40]

Zhou, Ch

T. Zhou, Ch. Zhang, H. Zhang, F. Xiu, and Zh. Yang, Inorg. Chem. Front. 3, 1637 (2016)

2016
[41]

Barman, Arghya Chattopadhyay, Surajit Sarkar, Jian-Xin Zhu, Snehasish Nandy

Chanchal K. Barman, Arghya Chattopadhyay, Surajit Sarkar, Jian-Xin Zhu, Snehasish Nandy. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.07993

doi arXiv
[42]

Xing-Guo Ye, Peng-Fei Zhu, Wen-Zheng Xu, Zhihao Zang, Yu Ye and Zhi-Min Liao. Phys. Rev. B 106, 045414 – Published 15 July, 2022

2022
[43]

Renshaw Wang

Shengyao Li, Xueyan Wang, Zherui Yang, Lijuan Zhang, Siew Lang Teo, Ming Lin, Ri He, Naizhou Wang, Peng Song, Wanghao Tian, Xian Jun Loh, Qiang Zhu, Bo Sun, X. Renshaw Wang. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.17808

doi arXiv
[44]

Science, 15 Jun 2023., Vol 381., Issue 6654 pp

Anyuan Gao, Yu-Fei Liu, Jian-Xiang Qiu, et all. Science, 15 Jun 2023., Vol 381., Issue 6654 pp. 181-186. DOI: 10.1126/science.adf1506

2023 doi
[45]

Nagaosa, J

N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1539 (2010)

2010
[46]

Hiroki Isobe, Su-Yang Xu, Liang Fu, Sci. Adv. 6, eaay2497 (2020) doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay2497

2020 doi
[47]

Jian-Feng Zhang, Yawen Zhao, Kai Liu, Yi Liu and Zhong-Yi Lu . Phys. Rev. B 104, 035111 – Published 6 July, 2021

2021
[48]

Debottam Mandal, Kamal Das, Amit Agarwal, arXiv:2201.02505

arXiv
[49]

A. A. Zyuzin and A. Yu. Zyuzin, Phys. Rev. B 95, 085127 (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.085127

2017 doi
[50]

Chris Dames, Gang Chen., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 124902 (2005)

2005
[51]

F. L. Bakker, A. Slachter, J.-P. Adam and B. J. van Wees. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 136601 – Published 24 September, 2010

2010
[52]

Cheng, Y., Cogulu, E., Resnick, R.D. et al. Third harmonic characterization of antiferromagnetic heterostructures. Nat Commun 13, 3659 (2022)

2022
[53]

S. B. Lee, S. C. Chae, S. H. Chang, J. S. Lee, S. Park, Y. Jo, S. Seo, B. Kahng, T. W. Noh. arXiv:0810.0886. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0810.0886

doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Sodemann and L

I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216806 (2015)

2015

[2] [2]

Field-induced Berry connection and planar Hall effect in tilted Weyl semimetals

YuanDong Wang, Zhen-Gang Zhu, Gang Su. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.03579

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.03579

[3] [3]

Extrinsic nonlinear acoustic valley Hall effect in the massive Dirac materials

Jia-Liang Wan, Ying-Li Wu, Ke-Qiu Chen, Xiao-Qin Yu. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.05698

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05698

[4] [4]

Zhang, J

Y. Zhang, J. van den Brink, C. Felser, and B. Yan, 2D Mater. 5, 044001 (2018)

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Cong Xiao, Z. Z. Du and Qian Niu, Phys. Rev. B 100, 165422 – Published 28 October, 2019

work page 2019

[6] [6]

An-Qi Wang, Dong Li, Tong-Yang Zhao, Xing-Yu Liu, Jiantian Zhang, Xin Liao, Qing Yin, Zhen-Cun Pan, Peng Yu, Zhi-Min Liao, Phys. Rev. B 110, 155434 – Published 24 October, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

O. O. Shvetsov, V. D. Esin, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, and E. V. Deviatov, Jetp Lett. 109, 715–721 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Tiwari, F

A. Tiwari, F. Chen, Sh. Zhong, E. Drueke, J. Koo, A. Kaczmarek, C. Xiao, J. Gao, X. Luo, Q. Niu, Y. Sun, B. Yan, L. Zhao and A. W. Tsen, Nat. Commun. 12, 2049 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22343-5

doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22343-5 2021